In re the Dissolution of Fulton-Washington Corp. Benjamin Burkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Dissolution of Fulton-Washington Corp. Benjamin Burkin

2 A.D.2d 981, 157 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3657

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 10, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 981 (In re the Dissolution of Fulton-Washington Corp. Benjamin Burkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Dissolution of Fulton-Washington Corp. Benjamin Burkin, 2 A.D.2d 981, 157 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In each of two separate proceedings for the dissolution of respective corporations, the appeal is from an order insofar as it requires all persons interested in the corporation to show cause before an official referee why the corporation should not be dissolved and denies appellant’s cross motion for a stay pending arbitration. Orders, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion the papers submitted sufficiently indicate on their face that there is a deadlock in the management of each corporation’s affairs, within the purview of section 103 of the General Corporation Law and that dissolution would be noninjurious to the public and beneficial to the shareholders. The record therefore warrants the exercise of the Special Term’s discretion in requiring interested persons to show cause as provided in section 106 of the General Corporation Law. (Cf. Matter of Radom & Neidorff, 307 N. Y. 1; Matter of Seamerlin Operating Co. (Searing-Merlino], 307 N. Y. 407.) Whether a proper case for dissolution is established should await development of all the facts at the hearing required to be held under section 113 of the General Corporation Law. The cross motion for a stay under section 1451 of the Civil Practice Act was properly denied. (Matter of Cohen [Michel], 183 Misc. 1034, affd. 269 App. Div. 663, motion for leave to appeal denied 294 N. Y. 639.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., concur. [3 Misc 2d 277.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In each of two separate proceedings for the dissolution of respective corporations, the appeal is from an order insofar as it requires all persons interested in the corporation to show cause before an official referee why the corporation should not be dissolved and denies appellant’s cross motion for a stay pending arbitration. Orders, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion the papers submitted sufficiently indicate on their face that there is a deadlock in the management of each corporation’s affairs, within the purview of section 103 of the General Corporation Law and that dissolution would be noninjurious to the public and beneficial to the shareholders. The record therefore warrants the exercise of the Special Term’s discretion in requiring interested persons to show cause as provided in section 106 of the General Corporation Law. (Cf. Matter of Radom & Neidorff, 307 N. Y. 1; Matter of Seamerlin Operating Co. (Searing-Merlino], 307 N. Y. 407.) Whether a proper case for dissolution is established should await development of all the facts at the hearing required to be held under section 113 of the General Corporation Law. The cross motion for a stay under section 1451 of the Civil Practice Act was properly denied. (Matter of Cohen [Michel], 183 Misc. 1034, affd. 269 App. Div. 663, motion for leave to appeal denied 294 N. Y. 639.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., concur. [3 Misc 2d 277.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 981, 157 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-dissolution-of-fulton-washington-corp-benjamin-burkin-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack